Online CPR Certification Blog

Date: April 22nd, 2014

Researchers have noted that there isn’t any significant difference in neurological outcomes or 4 hr survival rates if either mechanical or manual CPR is used on patients who’ve suffered from sudden cardiac arrests.

There was a similar outcome that stood at (P<0.99) when manual CPR was compared to CPR performed using pneumatic devices chest compression with defibrillators. These are findings submitted by Sten Rubertsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden and colleagues. The outcome of brain functions as was measured by CPC (Cerebral Performance Category) was also not that different at all. This was the same for patients in the ICU, those discharged, 1 and 6 months after the CPR. They wrote their finding in the journal of American Medical Association.

Mechanical and manual CPR

Cardiac arrests are considered one of the most lethal health problems in current society. This is because it claims millions of lives on annual basis. This statement was given by the AHA (American Hearts Association). They noted that the contribution of bystanders could significantly help in shifting the scale to make manual CPR more effective. This would be possible if they were to receive a serious of CPR training from professionals and experts who know how to administer the procedure.

The data from the study was presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, which was held in September 2013. According to Sten, the results were a little disappointing considering the fact that the LUCAS mechanical chest compression device had been marketed for over ten years.

Sten stated that the success of manual CPR was heavily reliant on the skill and endurance of the rescuer. Manual chest compressions only account for only 30% of normal cardiac procedures. Administration and hand-off time are known to mire manual CPR during the time the patient is being taken to the hospital.

Analyzing both manual and mechanical CPR

A study of 2589 patients suffering from cardiac arrest was used to compare manual and mechanical CPR. 1300 used the mechanical chest compression device while 1289 received manual CPR. The mechanical device was known as the LUCAS.

The patient’s mental stability and heart beat were monitored when they were in ICU, discharged and 1 – 6 months later. The patients scored 1 – 2 on the CPC which is used to measure neurological damages. The outcome was supposed to be totally independent of the subject’s lifestyles.

Rate of survival for those treated with mechanical CPR and about 23.7 for those who received manual CPR. The risk difference, therefore stood at (-0.05% 95%, CI minus 3.3%-3.2%). Those who were in the ICU and survived showed a neurological revival of 62% for mechanical and 54% for manual. The people who were discharged displayed a much impressive rate of 92% for mechanical against 86% for manual. Finally, the patients who survived one to six months later displayed a 99% for mechanical and 94% for manual.

The only limitation of the study was based on the fact that there were several inconsistencies recorded the rhythms were being recorded.